UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Just to clarify, I was in the USN on submarines and not a AF pilot. I believe that was Puddleduck, who offerred expertise as an F-4 pilot (although I thought he was a UK pilot and not US) in regards to the Iran UFO chase. It was an honest mistake on 23 Tauri's part. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression.

Geeze, I'd better retract all those sockpuppet reports I've been submitting.

 

[carlitos]

You're probably right. People who think rationally are going to ask for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. They are going to assume the null hypothesis is correct until it is falsified. Fortunately, the null hypothesis is falsifiable.

This is a fair point. Why would ufology join this forum and think otherwise? I'm sure that there are lots of venues for storytelling. "Skepticism and critical thinking" are mentioned in the banner at the top of every page.

 

[ufology]

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes ≠ objective physical scientific evidence.

Anecdotes do contain information and that information can be studied scientifically. It's the types of conclusions and the types of studies that determine whether or not the science is valid. For example, anecdotal information can be used in perfectly legitimate scientific statistical studies to determine various demographic and probability factors e.g. x number of people from Iowa reported seeing Canada geese during September and of those x number lived in cities and x number in rural areas and this reflects x number compared to previous years, which means the trend is whatever ...

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

What?


on edit, never mind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes ≠ objective physical scientific evidence.

Anecdotes do contain information and that information can be studied scientifically.

In UFOlogy, it is studied pseudoscientifically.

It's the types of conclusions and the types of studies that determine whether or not the science is valid.

The conclusion that UFOlogy comes to is "OMG PseudoAliens!" That makes it pseudoscience.

For example, anecdotal information can be used in perfectly legitimate scientific statistical studies to determine various demographic and probability factors.

j.r.

Various demographic and probability factors are known to exist. PseudoAliens aren't. Do you see the difference? If not, why not?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is a fair point. Why would ufology join this forum and think otherwise? I'm sure that there are lots of venues for storytelling. "Skepticism and critical thinking" are mentioned in the banner at the top of every page.

It seems that he has come to a forum for critical thinking and decided that in this one thread, it won't be allowed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes ≠ objective physical scientific evidence.

j.r.

Anecdotes of UFOs (as alien spaceships) = Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

 

[ufology]

In UFOlogy, it is studied pseudoscientifically.

The conclusion that UFOlogy comes to is "OMG PseudoAliens!" That makes it pseudoscience.

Various demographic and probability factors are known to exist. PseudoAliens aren't. Do you see the difference? If not, why not?

The above isn't accurate and is a misrepresentation of the entire field of ufology. In every single study I've seen that deals with numerous cases there is a high percentage that were considered after investigation to have been caused by misidentification of known objects or phenomena. Futhermore the cases where the object under investigation could not be attributed to manmade or natural phenomena, the cases were generally referred to as "unknown". From the description of some of these incidents some people are of the opinion that they probably represent alien technology. This is entirely different than what the poster above claims. Furthermore, it isn't what "ufology does", it's what some ufologists and other people who study the phenomenon do. Ufology on the whole involves more than case studies.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes ≠ objective physical scientific evidence.

That either.

Anecdotes do contain information and that information can be studied scientifically.

Welcome to the wonderful world of pseudoscience.

It's the types of conclusions and the types of studies that determine whether or not the science is valid. For example, anecdotal information can be used in perfectly legitimate scientific statistical studies to determine various demographic and probability factors e.g. x number of people from Iowa reported seeing Canada geese during September and of those x number lived in cities and x number in rural areas and this reflects x number compared to previous years, which means the trend is whatever ...

j.r.

Despite that there are a number of things wrong with this attempted analogy I'll stick with just the main one - Canada Geese exist and flying saucers don't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above isn't accurate and is a misrepresentation of the entire field of ufology. In every single study I've seen that deals with numerous cases there is a high percentage that were considered after investigation to have been caused by misidentification of known objects or phenomena. Futhermore the cases where the object under investigation could not be attributed to manmade or natural phenomena, the cases were generally referred to as "unknown". From the description of some of these incidents some people are of the opinion that they probably represent alien technology. This is entirely different than what the poster above claims. Furthermore, it isn't what "ufology does", it's what some ufologists and other people who study the phenomenon do.

j.r.

No, you are incorrect. UFOlogy uses this null hypothesis:

"Some UFOs are alien in origin"​

which is not falsifiable. Even if every UFO except one was proven to have a mundane explanation, you would always have the last one that might be "OMG PseudoAliens!" It's a pseudoscientific null hypthesis.

Furthermore, yes, that is exactly what UFOlogy does. If you are claiming that it isn't, which UFOlogists don't use that null hpothesis?

 

[ufology]

No, you are incorrect. UFOlogy uses this null hypothesis:

"Some UFOs are alien in origin"
​

which is not falsifiable. Even if every UFO except one was proven to have a mundane explanation, you would always have the last one that might be "OMG PseudoAliens!" It's a pseudoscientific null hypthesis.

Furthermore, yes, that is exactly what UFOlogy does. If you are claiming that it isn't, which UFOlogists don't use that null hpothesis?

The above poster is just plain misinformed or wants to believe or promote the misinformation to bolster a false conclusion. Anyone who takes the time to study ufology will see that I'm telling the truth. Certainly the ETH is popular, but there are other theories as well, and most sightings turn out to be everyday objects or phenomena seen under unusual conditions. Every ufologist knows this and it's been this way since the dawn of the Modern Era in ufology. But don't take my word for it. Start with ufology 101 and read Ruppelt's The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects. As a former head of the USAF project investigating UFOs, the statistical data he includes prove what I'm saying is true, and he doesn't come to any firm conclusion regarding the actual origin of all UFOs either. In fact I don't know of any ufologist who does. Perhaps the poster can provide some names of actual ufologist who do along with some verifiable quotes? As for the posters quote, "Some UFOs are alien in origin", I believe many ufologists share that opinion ... but that is entirely different than using it as as "null hypothesis". I personally believe it to be true but that doesn't mean I instantly assume every report I see is about an alien craft.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

In UFOlogy, it is studied pseudoscientifically.

The conclusion that UFOlogy comes to is "OMG PseudoAliens!" That makes it pseudoscience.

Various demographic and probability factors are known to exist. PseudoAliens aren't. Do you see the difference? If not, why not?

The above isn't accurate and is a misrepresentation of the entire field of ufology.

Since you respond like this by rote to any description of ufology other than your own, it's become meaningless parrotting. Try and mix it up a bit would you?

<pseudoscience>

From the description of some of these incidents some people are of the opinion that they probably represent alien technology.

Some people are of the opinion that the disposition of distant planets at the time of one's birth probably affects such things as one's personality and temperament.

Would you call that pseudoscience, ufology?

This is entirely different than what the poster above claims.

Oh no it's not.

Furthermore, it isn't what "ufology does", it's what some ufologists and other people who study the phenomenon do.

The old No True Ufologist gambit again, eh, Haven't seen that one in almost half a page now.

Ufology on the whole involves more than case studies.

Absolutely. There's data to be mined, wild speculations to be made, false conclusions to be leapt at, biases to be inclined towards - it's a hectic life for the dedicated ufologist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster is just plain misinformed or wants to believe or promote the misinformation to bolster a false conclusion. Anyone who takes the time to study ufology will see that I'm telling the truth. Certainly the ETH is popular, but there are other theories as well, and most sightings turn out to be everyday objects or phenomena seen under unusual conditions. Every ufologist knows this and it's been this way since the dawn of the Modern Era in ufology. But don't take my word for it. Start with ufology 101 and read Ruppelt's The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects. As a former head of the USAF project investigating UFOs, the statistical data he includes prove what I'm saying is true, and he doesn't come to any firm conclusion regarding the actual origin of UFOs either. In fact I don't know of any ufologist who does. Perhaps the poster can provide some names of actual ufologist who do along with some verifiable quotes?

j.r.

You don't know of any UFOlogists who think some UFOs are Flying Saucery Aliens? Really?

The above poster has forgotten what he's posted on this forum and in his own website:

to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth.

So the above poster is either delusional or is playing fast and loose with factual reality again.

But do tell us about these other theories.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anyone who takes the time to study ufology will see that I'm telling the truth.

You're talking to a group which pretty much specialises in studying nonsense like ufology and I'm afraid I have to point out that they've almost unanimously decided that no you aren't.

Apart from noting that, I have to say that the idea of ufologyology has a certain intrigue. I wonder if it could be referred to as pseudopseudoscience.*



*ETA: My text-to-speech program says that she would rather we didn't, and ufologyology is pushing the friendship as well.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As for the posters quote, "Some UFOs are alien in origin", I believe many ufologists share that opinion ... but that is entirely different than using it as as "null hypothesis". I personally believe it to be true but that doesn't mean I instantly assume every report I see is about an alien craft.

j.r.

Since you added this part after I quoted you, I'll answer it separately.

No, the above poster is incorrect. Having the opinion that "Some UFOs are alien in origin" means having a null hypothesis of "Some UFOs are alien in origin". Why did you change the wording from "some" to "every report" in your last sentence? Where do you keep all of your strawmen?

So, which UFOlogists do not have the null hypothesis that "Some UFOs are alien in origin"? You have obviously adopted it as your own.

 

[carlitos]

...he doesn't come to any firm conclusion regarding the actual origin of UFOs either. In fact I don't know of any ufologist who does. Perhaps the poster can provide some names of actual ufologist who do along with some verifiable quotes?

j.r.

Sure.

USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.


...


to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth.

http://www.ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm

Strewn amid the events above are a host of other paranormal experiences including hauntings and iconic religious manifestations. I experienced all of these events while healthy conscious and unimpaired. The only conclusion I've drawn about these experiences is that some UFOs represent an advanced alien transportation technology. Anything else is pure speculation. However it is reasonable to assume that the principles that allow the various components of UFOs to work could also be used to produce a variety of paranormal and religious phenomena, including apparitions and levitation.

So there's one.

 

[23_Tauri]

Just to clarify, I was in the USN on submarines and not a AF pilot. I believe that was Puddleduck, who offerred expertise as an F-4 pilot (although I thought he was a UK pilot and not US) in regards to the Iran UFO chase. It was an honest mistake on 23 Tauri's part. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression.

Thank you Astrophotographer. Yes, I admit I did make a mistake last night, thinking that Astrophotograhper was a pilot, a mistake that was pointed out to me by a fellow poster this morning. I hold my hands up.

ufology, do you see how lucky we are here at JREF to have people from all walks of life, with expertise in many areas, such as the military, astronomy and psychology, who can assist us with an understanding of the UFO phenomenon? I confess I have made the mistake elsewhere (SMM&T in fact ) of going in all guns blazing on a topic about which I had only scant, layman's knowledge, only to discover I was in discussion with experts in the field. Yes, it's embarrassing, but I learnt quickly. Likewise, there are posters here who have studied the UFO phenomenon for a greater part of their lives, and seen UFOs themselves and yet they are still skeptics. Why do you think that is?

 

[EHocking]

...And of course when the skeptics use the word "evidence" here, what they really mean is objective scientific evidence that can be applied to the scientific method. Other evidence like anecdotal information is consistently dismissed, which is what scientific skeptics are supposed to do. They have the easy job. That is unless they get off their butts and go try to find the evidence. But do we ever see any of them doing that? Heaven's no ... and if they ever did have an extraordinary experience, OMG, that would be sacreligious and they'd be ostracized from their order...

Ah, yet more baseless assertions.

I have posted about both of my UFO encounters on this forum, as have a number of others - years before you arrived here.

And guess what?
I don't feel ostracised at all by any of the "debunkers" on these threads.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[23_Tauri]

That is unless they get off their butts and go try to find the evidence. But do we ever see any of them doing that? Heaven's no ...

Curious. How does one go about searching for evidence of alien visitation? Has UFOlogy become a quest for remnants a la archeology? Or do you mean we skeptics should all go out sky watching? I wager many of the posters here are or have been ardent night sky watchers at some point in their lives. I know of at least one. As for evidence, as RoboTimbo says, for the last umpteen pages it's been the skeptical folk who have bothered to look for evidence. Gooses, for example. Or firefly mating behaviour.

and if they ever did have an extraordinary experience, OMG, that would be sacreligious and they'd be ostracized from their order.

So skeptics are people who have never experienced the extraordinary. Mate, I've sunk enough ayahuasca to floor an ox, so don't going lecturing me about extraordinary experiences.

As it happens, I think you'll find that many skeptics are former woo-woos who once upon time interpreted their extraordinary experiences in paranormal terms, not people who have never seen anything out of the ordinary.

So why bother? It's easier to sit back and use the lazy-man's argument all day. After all there isn't much to remember ... you certainly don't have to actually think about the issue ... you just chant "show me the evidence" over and over and over again.

Isn't it mentally more lazy to say it's god/aliens/dark spirits/crystal energy/chi/telepathy and just be satisfied with that explanation?

 

[ufology]

Sure .... use the quote link to view entire post.

So there's one.

The above poster is using out of context quotes. Since they are from my website and from me persoanlly I'll explain.

First: My personal belief about the existence of alien objects having visited Earth is different than assuming beforehand that every case represents a story of alien visitation. I don't do that.

Second: My belief that other people have had sightings as good or better than mine is different than assuming beforehand that every case represents a story of alien visitation. I don't do that either.

Third: My beliefs are based on personal experience and the analysis of numerous reports. I haven't jumped to any conclusion. Rather I've arrived at a personal viewpoint through personal experience and the efforts of many others both inside and outside the field of ufology. Furthermore I don't claim to have any special insider knowledge. I don't know where the alien craft originate or why they are here, or if they are even still here at all.

Lastly, I do stand with all those others who know that they have seen an alien craft because I'm one of them and I will not abandon them in that regard. We know ... while those who have never had the experience don't. It's as simple as that and nothing can change the truth of it whether we can prove it or not.

j.r.